President Obama: Attacks on Susan Rice ‘outrageous’

President Barack Obama offered a fiery defense Wednesday of his administration’s handling of the attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, dismissing Republicans’ critiques of United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice as “outrageous.”

Obama specifically rebutted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who earlier Wednesday called for a “Watergate-style” investigation into the attacks and said they don’t trust Rice because of her statements on Benghazi. Rice is seen as a top contender to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Text Size

McCain, Graham blame Rice

Obama defends Susan Rice

Full Obama press conference

Obama on Petraeus, FBI

“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House during his first news conference since winning reelection. “For them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

Obama wouldn’t weigh in on possible Cabinet appointments, but he said if he decides that Rice is the best choice to be secretary of state, “I will nominate her.”

“I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have our Americans killed that’s a problem,” Obama said. “They won’t get any debate from me on that. But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”

Graham and McCain quickly rebuked the president’s comments.

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as commander in chief before, during and after the attack,” Graham said. “We owe it to the American people and the victims of this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability be assigned where appropriate. Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle.”

Obama’s charge that the senators are “picking on” Rice “is really remarkable in that if the president thinks we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea how serious this issue is,” McCain said on the Senate floor, joined by Graham and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who have all been vocal in questioning the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi. “We are trying to find out the facts. The American people deserve to find out the facts.”

Obama also distanced himself and the White House from the probe into the situation that led to Gen. David Petraeus’s resignation as CIA director, but he said he is not aware of any breach of classified information while Petraeus interacted with biographer Paula Broadwell or others. He referred questions about the investigation to FBI Director Robert Mueller.

“One of the challenges here is, is that we’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations,” the president said.

He added, “I have no evidence at this point from what I’ve seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had an impact on our national security.”

Obama didn’t have an answer as to why he wasn’t told of the FBI investigation until Thursday. “I am withholding judgment with respect to how the entire process surrounding Gen. Petraeus came up. We don’t have all the information yet, but I want to say I have a lot of confidence generally in the FBI,” he said.

He also chastised reporters a bit, telling them that had he been alerted earlier, they would have been asking him “why we were interfering in a criminal investigation.”

Guess nobody in the WH saw Paula Broadwell's YouTube video in October 2012 when she openly stated that the Benghazi attack was pointed at the CIA annex because of CIA holding militant operatives, several in fact. Wasn't she trading emails with Petraeus at the time?

The CIA even denied they were doing it because she came out on video.

Also the POTUS kept saying the FBI investigation on Petraeus was criminal when they said it wasn't. If Broadwell hasn't been charged and detained, Petraeus charged and detained, even now it was about national security breaches that went on for months before an election. This is a scandle in more ways than just a general.

So Republican hero Petraeus will testify on Thursday. He's been publicly humiliated, his deep secrets exposed, and he's no longer part of the administration. So whatever his testimony is on Thursday will be accepted by those on the right and we will finally see an end to all the baseless conspiracy theories about Benghazi, right?

Obama ," No sign of security breach". can't meddle in a criminal investigation? come on......Gee I thought it all started with a complaint to an FBI guy some broke socialite knew in Tampa that was having email phone sex with Gen. Allen.?

Paula Broadwell, the former military intelligence officer whose alleged affair with CIA Director David Petraeus culminated in the end of his career, had earlier made some startling, now-revealed claims about the agency’s role in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi.

In an Oct. 26 speech at the University of Denver, she said that Libyan militants had attacked the post to retrieve some fellow fighters who’d been taken prisoner at the nearby CIA annex. She also seems to suggest that Petraeus himself knew about it, implying that he may have been her source.

So Republican hero Petraeus will testify on Thursday. He's been publicly humiliated, his deep secrets exposed, and he's no longer part of the administration. So whatever his testimony is on Thursday will be accepted by those on the right and we will finally see an end to all the baseless conspiracy theories about Benghazi, right?

==========================

Not hardly!

A conspiracy has already been documented. Now it is a matter of finding out just how deep and how widespread the conspiracy is. Hopefully, the Congress will be able to investigate it without WH interference and stonewalling. That is, however, unlikely. The WH seems intent on covering up most aspects of this conspiracy. Hopefully, Director Patraeus can shed some light on it, but that is not assured given his past participation in publicizing the cover story on Sept 14 during his testimony.

If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House during his first news conference since winning re-election, referring to Susan Rice, who is seen as a top contender for secretary of State. Of course, Politico conveniently forgets to mention that Obama also said : "Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi." That, in turn, begs the question why Rice appeared on 5 TV shows talking nonsense about the Mohammed video. Nothing- absolutely nothing this administration says or does makes any sense.

Guess nobody in the WH saw Paula Broadwell's YouTube video in October 2012 when she openly stated that the Benghazi attack was pointed at the CIA annex because of CIA holding militant operatives, several in fact. Wasn't she trading emails with Petraeus at the time?

That she said it is one thing - that she actally knew what she was talking about, quite another. But by all means, she's a stellar individual, ask her about all that stuff, she's obviously qualified to answer the questions! LOL!!

Why did the President Obama knowingly give Susan Rice false information about the murder of our Ambassador and other Americans?

Did Susan Rice know that she was telling the nation lies about the murders?

=======================

As Sen McCain said, she certainly should have asked questions and ensured she was being truthful.

Sec Clinton didn't appear because she knew the truth, and wasn't going to have video out there demonstrating that she told the public falsehoods. She still has political ambitions, and perpetrating a phony cover story would have doomed those chances. So the Pres chose Susan Rice to represent him on TV on five occasions to answer questions about things she was only remotely aware of.

Right - Olbamehim knew EVERYTHING about the attack AS SOON AS IT HAPPENED - the PRESIDENT has DRONES everywhere!

If we had elected Mitt - if only- he would have led the attack on LIEBYA himself! Or if he was too busy attack IRAN and SYRIA he would have sent his warrior son Tagg!We DO NOT need to look into who financed the HATE VIDEO - it might have been Rove - but that does NOT matter!

What matters is that the PRESIDENT MUST HAVE known EVERYTHING about the attack as soon as it happened - MItt would have! Then because he knew the 100% facts of the attack, anything he said afterwards that was NOT AL QAEDA DID IT is a LIE!

THe fact that the 'intelligence community' did not want to give credit to Al Qaeda because that would help Al Qaeda fundraise and gain recruits has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

If they wanted to keep that part out of the press for a while, they should not have told REPUBLICANS BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO THE REAL PROBLEM IS!!!